5. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
When Taito Phillip Field met with the Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor, on 17 May 2005, to discuss the immigration case of Sunan Siriwan, was the Associate Minister’s private secretary present at that meeting when the Siriwan case was discussed?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
That has long been a matter of the public record.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Ministers are supposed to give an answer—if it can be given—to enhance the public interest, in such cases. For him to simply say it is a matter of public record then sit down is unacceptable. Surely, he could give a simple “Yes” or “No”, or has this whole case become so messy that the Government just does not know how to answer any question about it?
Madam SPEAKERYes, I think the member is right; the Minister could have been more helpful in his reply, though he did address the question. So I would ask the Minister to expand on his reply, please.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The answer to the member’s question is set out in the Ingram inquiry report.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Taito Phillip Field the following day, 18 May 2005, having written to the then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor: “As a result of my representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan, you have decided”—I repeat “decided”—“that you would consider favourably a two year work permit to allow him to re-enter New Zealand from Apia, Samoa”, and “You further decided that a Special Direction will”—I repeat “will”—“be granted to cancel the 5 year penalty for his spouse”, did the Associate Minister’s private secretary see that letter; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Although I am not responsible for the internal workings of the offices of former Ministers, including the office of that former Associate Minister, I am advised that the department did not accept Taito Phillip Field’s letter’s version of what happened at that meeting. Quite correctly, the department awaited formal notification from the Associate Minister of the later decision that he subsequently made.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Were such decisions to “consider favourably a two year work permit to allow [Mr Siriwan] to re-renter New Zealand from Apia, Samoa” and to make a special direction “to cancel the 5 year penalty for his spouse” made at the meeting on 17 May 2005 between Taito Phillip Field, the then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor, and the Associate Minister’s private secretary, Ms Nicola Scotland?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Although the Ingram inquiry report appears to confirm that the case was discussed, the decision was not made by the then Associate Minister until some weeks later.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Is it correct that when Mrs Field presented Taito Phillip Field’s letter detailing the Minister’s alleged decisions to the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service, the branch manager in Apia faxed the group manager of service international in Wellington the same day asking “whether our [Associate] Minister was aware of the information we have received … regarding these Thai nationals when he apparently made these decisions following discussions with Hon Taito Philip Field.”, and is it correct that the group manager of service international phoned the then Associate Minister’s office the same day to warn him, and spoke to the Associate Minister’s private secretary?
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would hate to see the Minister risk misleading the House. I would invite him to reconsider his answer.
That is not a point of order. The Minister has given his answer; he will take responsibility for it.
Taito Phillip Field Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With due respect, I take exception to the slight on my integrity implied by that member’s questions—as he has done for the past 17 months. I make reference to Standing Order 116 and the Speakers’ rulings on pages 38 and 39.
That is not a point of order, unless, in fact, the member is seeking leave to make a personal explanation. Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation?
Taito Phillip Field Link to this
Yes. I take exception that in the past 17 months that member has continually made allegations about me in this House in question time. I want to make it clear to him that, in fact, a lot of the allegations he has made in this House are quite untrue and have reflected badly on my integrity. If that member has any scrap of evidence to back up the allegations he has been making for that lengthy period of time, I invite him to come out of his closet and make those allegations outside this House.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Does the Minister consider it plausible that the then Associate Minister’s private secretary—who was aware that 2 months earlier the Hon Damien O’Connor had declined visas for both Sunan Siriwan and his partner, Ms Phanngarm; who was present at the crucial meeting on 17 May; and who knew that Taito Phillip Field had misrepresented the outcome of that meeting in his letter of 18 May—would ignore a logged phone call from the head of service international, only a few days later, telling her of Mr Field’s conflict of interest over the same Sunan Siriwan in Samoa, and not say anything to her Minister?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
That has, for a long time, been recorded as the conclusion of the Ingram inquiry. Crucial to that judgment is the fact that—[ Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. One presumes from the fact that the member opposite has asked some 400 questions on this matter that he would still like to hear the answer.
Would the Minister continue, please. [ Interruption] The Minister has a point. Let the Minister address the question, so that we all can hear it.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I was going on to say that I imagine that among factors that Dr Ingram QC would have taken into account are the facts that the meeting with Taito Phillip Field in question happened on 17 May, and that the first alleged passage of specific information about Sunan Siriwan to the private secretary did not occur until some 3 weeks later, on 9 June.